US sues/settles with Apple, Google, Intel...

No-poaching pacts 'anticompetitive'


On Friday, the US Department of Justice sued and then announced a settlement with Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, and Pixar, in a move that will stop the six companies from entering into what the DoJ characterized as "anticompetitive employee solicitation agreements."

According to the DoJ's announcement of the suit and settlement, the companies had entered into no-poaching pacts that "diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities."

The DoJ's action comes as no surprise. As The Reg has previously noted, top-flight Silicon Valley companies have long been reported to have entered into sub-rosa agreements to prevent the poaching of top-flight employees.

Or they've tried to. Palm, for example, reportedly declined an offer from Apple to enter into such an agreement. Google, on the other hand, had no such qualms — reports surfaced in mid-2009 that Mountain View had agreed to such a pact with Cupertino.

A DoJ investigation into the practice had long been rumored, and Friday the rumors shed their cloak of secrecy and became public.

Among the offending anticompetitive practices, as explained by the DoJ in its lawsuit, were the following:

  • "Beginning no later than 2006, Apple and Google executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees. Apple placed Google on its internal 'Do Not Call List,' which instructed employees not to directly solicit employees from the listed companies. Similarly, Google listed Apple among the companies that had special agreements with Google and were part of the 'Do Not Cold Call' list.
  • "Beginning no later than May 2005, senior Apple and Adobe executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Adobe on its internal 'Do Not Call List' and similarly, Adobe included Apple in its internal list of 'Companies that are off limits'.
  • "Beginning no later than April 2007, Apple and Pixar executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees. Apple placed Pixar on its internal 'Do Not Call List' and senior executives at Pixar instructed human resources personnel to adhere to the agreement and maintain a paper trail.
  • "Beginning no later than September 2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google listed Intel among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the 'Do Not Cold Call' list. Similarly, Intel instructed its human resources staff about the existence of the agreement.
  • "In June 2007, Google and Intuit executives agreed that Google would not cold call any Intuit employee. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google also listed Intuit among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the 'Do Not Cold Call' list."

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, such activities are now verboten.

In addition, the DoJ notes, although the suit filed on Friday alleges only that the companies colluded in agreements to ban cold-calling, the settlement goes further by enjoining the six from "entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees."

Although the suit and settlement involve only the six companies mentioned above, other firms engaging in no-poaching pacts shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief. According to the DoJ, its Antitrust Division "continues to investigate other similar no solicitation agreements."

The DoJ is making its move, according to their statement, with the well-being of high-tech employees in mind. No-poaching pacts "interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees," and its elimination will result in "better career opportunities" for "employees with advanced or specialized skills" for which there is "strong demand."

The proposed settlement will be published in The Federal Register, at which time a 60-day comment period will commence. At the end of that period, the US District Court for the District of Columbia will enter its ruling.

Then, if the court accepts the settlement, the invisible hand that controls the "price-setting mechanism" will be unshackled. ®

Bootnote

It will be interesting to see how the settlement, if approved, will affect Google's stated policy of not hiring too many smart people.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • India reveals home-grown server that won't worry the leading edge

    And a National Blockchain Strategy that calls for gov to host BaaS

    India's government has revealed a home-grown server design that is unlikely to threaten the pacesetters of high tech, but (it hopes) will attract domestic buyers and manufacturers and help to kickstart the nation's hardware industry.

    The "Rudra" design is a two-socket server that can run Intel's Cascade Lake Xeons. The machines are offered in 1U or 2U form factors, each at half-width. A pair of GPUs can be equipped, as can DDR4 RAM.

    Cascade Lake emerged in 2019 and has since been superseded by the Ice Lake architecture launched in April 2021. Indian authorities know Rudra is off the pace, and said a new design capable of supporting four GPUs is already in the works with a reveal planned for June 2022.

    Continue reading
  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021